Filed 6/3/21 P. v. Superior Court (Frazier) CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN 

COUNTY,

Respondent;

BELTESHAZZAR FRAZIER et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

F082421

(Super. Ct. No. BF181655A/B)

OPINION

THE COURT

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. 

Cynthia Zimmer, District Attorney, and Anthony Yim, Deputy District Attorney, 

for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Parties in Interest.

-ooOoo-

 Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Smith, J., and Meehan, J.
2

On February 24, 2021, petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Prohibition 

and/Mandate and Request for Stay,” challenging the superior court’s January 7, 2021 

ruling denying the superseding motion to amend count 1 of the information and the 

February 9, 2021 order denying the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner contends there 

was sufficient evidentiary support of the first count for the second degree robbery charge 

presented at the preliminary hearing to support the amendment of the information to add 

the charge. 

“An information may be amended ‘for any defect or insufficiency, at any stage of 

the proceedings,’ so long as the amended information does not ‘charge an offense not 

shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination.’ (§ 1009.)” (People v. 

Goolsby (2015) 62 Cal.4th 360, 367–368.) “Due process requires that a criminal 

defendant be advised of the charges against him so that he has a reasonable opportunity 

to prepare and present a defense and not be taken by surprise by evidence offered against 

him at trial. [Citations.] But a defendant’s due process rights are not prejudiced by 

amendment of the information, and the trial court may permit amendment of the 

accusatory pleading ‘at any stage of the proceeding, up to and including the close of 

trial,’ so long as defendant’s substantial rights are not prejudiced.” (People v. Fernandez

(2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 540, 554.)

Real party in interest Belteshazzar Frazier (RPI) has not shown prejudice. The 

robbery count was alleged against RPI in the initial complaint, and the superior court 

found sufficient evidence supported the count against RPI at the preliminary hearing. 

RPI was placed on notice since the inception of the criminal proceedings and has not 

otherwise provided evidence of prejudice by amendment of the information. 

In light of the above, we direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. 

(Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177–180.) Petitioner’s 

right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would be served by issuance of an 
3

alternative writ, further briefing, and oral argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 

Cal.4th 29, 35; see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236–1237, 

1240–1241; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 

1233, 1240–1244.)

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ issue directing the Kern County Superior Court to vacate its 

January 7, 2021 and February 9, 2021 orders and grant petitioner’s motion to amend the 

information. 

In the interests of justice and to prevent further delays, this decision shall be final 

as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) The remittitur 

will issue immediately upon the finality of this opinion as to this court, should the parties 

so stipulate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.272(c)(1) & 8.490(d).)